>> jennifer: i'm jennifer granholm. this is "the war room". a scoreboard with a winner and losers. this is something our friends on the right are having a little trouble grasping lately. >> jennifer: in 1969, dr. elizabeth kubler ross described what she called the classic five stages of grief.

denial anger bargaining, depression and acceptance. and republicans, i'm sorry to say it, that pretty well describes your party after the shellacking you got in the election. some members of your party are further along in the stages of grief but the republicans all seem to fall somewhere along that spectrum. let's take a look. so first there's denial. as in everything's fine! carry on. none of this is really happening! that's where the majority of the republicans, at least in congress are. but we should cut them a little slack. afterall everybody from peggy noonan to karl rove assured them they would be in the white house by this time so they're understandably shock and distressed and poor speaker john boehner is hopelessly stuck in that stage. his is, of course, willful

denial. a stubborn refusal to recognize reality are. but it is denial nonetheless. today, he dug in his heels. he refused to budge. he released a statement blaming the president for the impasse saying "we don't have time for the president to continue shifting the goalposts. we need to solve this problem." in fact, his approach all along has been to deny reality altogether. his plan is essentially a rehash of mitt romney's. closing loopholes to raise revenue and remember, mitt romney lost. and democrats of course, rightly are calling him out on it. representative sandra levin who released a statement yesterday saying that republicans "remain in a state of denial." well, here he is on monday, going even further. >> the republicans have a major decision to make. and that is essentially who's

running their party? is it norquist? is it the people who spoke in the election and voted for the president? this issue was foremost in the campaign. the people spoke. the republicans need to listen. >> jennifer: the people spoke! well said, congressman leen! -- levin. deal with it. so far, the republicans have not listened. some of them have even moved on to the next stage of grief which is anger. case in point, eric cantor. he threw a bit of a twitter tantrum today. he tweeted "the house will not adjourn the 112th congress until a credible solution to the fiscal cliff has been announced." the house will not adjourn. not! but don't worry, he will be on to the next stage soon enough. it is kind of ironic, since, of course they adjourned today until next week. this is a wednesday.

but anyway, that's bargaining is the next stage. and of course bargaining means that you hope to be able to compromise. you hope to be able to avoid the inevitable. the poster boy for this one is oklahoma senator tom coburn who said today that he would rather see tax rates go up than close loopholes because then he thinks he can get tax reform passed in the future. a little bit of wishful thinking. >> i know we have to raise revenue. i don't really care which way we do it. actually, i would rather see the rates go up than do it the other way because it gives us greater chance to reform the tax code and broaden the base in the future. >> jennifer: so he's not giving in. he's just bargaining now to see what he can get later. and then we've got the fourth stage which is depression. which is often accompanied according to elizabeth kubler

ross by wistful thoughts of better times. newt gingrich is planted firmly in this stage. he said he longs for the 1990s when republicans led by him of course, were, in his estimate aches, republicans were more able, more powerful, able to get president clinton to bend to their will or at least so he said on piers morgan last night when he said "we earned president clinton's respect by closing the government twice and being very rough and tumble. we showed we actually were willing to take the heat." mr. wistful himself. newt gingrich. then moving on to the fifth stage of grief. we finally reach the last one which is acceptance. the acknowledgement that i can't fight it. i might as well prepare for it.

and, in fact, we're seeing signs that some of the more evolved republicans have reached that stage. a few dozen republicans have actually joined a bipartisan call to find a compromise. they signed a letter calling for the exploration of all options on taxes and entitlement programs. and today, one of them, kay granger of texas said that a demand to raise rates on top earners is, and this is her quote "just the right thing to do." representative mike simpson of idaho told bloomberg news "it's pretty obvious that obama won the election and he promised he was going to raise tax on the wealthiest and he said while it may be unpalatable, there is enough sane people left to get it done." well, maybe there is hope afterall. joining me now from washington is republican strategist and author of the book "blackwards," ron christie.

thank you so much for joining us inside "the war room" again. >> governor, it is nice to see you again. >> jennifer: all right. so do you think republicans have recovered from losing the election? >> well, i think we have. i think there's no question that although president obama got less of the popular vote than he did the last time around, his electoral college numbers went up. he won. but the other thing that i would say to you governor, is senate republicans, the american people voted for the status quo. they kept the republicans running the majority in the house of representatives to keep a check on the executive branch and so while we did take a shellacking in the presidential election, we still have one of the houses of congress -- it is up to the congress to negotiate with the president. >> jennifer: i gotta stop you on that though because the democrats won the popular vote in the house races too by a million votes. yes, republicans maintained control. but they lost seats and a large reason why they maintain control is because of redistricting and

gerrymandering. of course the republicans you all lost seats in the senate as well. i wouldn't say the people voted for the status quo. i think the people want to see washington get things done and not obstruct. but that's my opinion. >> we can both agree with that. i think the american people -- i travel around the country as do you, i think people are tired of the gridlock that goes on in washington where nothing gets accomplished. but let me say this. we have this document called the constitution governor. and the constitution says that revenue bills must originate in the house of representatives. so while the president is insistent that the upper two marginal tax rates go up, half republicans do have a say in this and their job is not to roll over and capitulate to everything that the president wants. it is art of negotiation. >> jennifer: i agree it is the art of negotiation. you're completely right. the republicans did lose on the issue of tax fairness though and now the american public says that it would overwhelmingly blame the republicans if we go over the cliff. don't you think that john

boehner is in denial of those facts? >> no, i don't. i've known john boehner for 21 years. he recognizes that the republicans also running for re-election said to their constituents "we will not raise your taxes. we will not do anything in this economic recession to make things worse "." raising the top two rates is going to hit the job creators and i think what john boehner has said, he said this the day after the election, governor, he said we recognize that the elections have consequences, the president won. republicans are willing to give the president most of what he wants, $800 billion somewhere around a trillion of additional revenue. how do we get there. the president wants to increase tax on the wealthy. republicans want to close loopholes. i think we're a lot closer than the president and congressional republicans would lead you to believe. it is a question of how do we get there. >> jennifer: don't you think ron, if they close loopholes now, then they're not going to be able to lower the corporate tax rate -- it depends on which loopholes you close whether personal or corporate loopholes.

if you're closing personal loopholes and you can't get to $800 billion without eliminating the mortgage deduction and all of the popular things like charitable giving, you've got people who are saying that is completely off the table and people voted very clearly five million votes ahead the president got saying we want to raise the rates on the wealthiest. so i don't know how you can deny that that's exactly -- yes the republicans campaigned and they lost. so now they've got to move on. >> we campaigned for the presidential and lost but we campaigned in the house and we came back at a majority. one last thing to you i would say, remember it was president obama who in july of 2011, july of last year said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue without raising rates. if the president thought that was the right thing to do last year of again getting additional revenue he said he wants to do, let's see where his numbers are and how he gets this $1.2 trillion.

i think there is obviously room for negotiation and there is an opportunity to get this done but i think republicans put forth a very credible planned i think we need to see something in specificity from the president in writing as opposed to what he's doing saying raise -- >> jennifer: ron the republicans have not specified which loopholes to close. they haven't been specific. for the reason we've talked about. they're unpopular. it is upon the burden -- the burden is on the republicans to be specific about what they can have the votes for in terms of which loopholes to close. but ultimately, if they don't reach a deal as you know, the rates are going up and it will be resolved by january 3rd, i were deict because -- i predict because nobody will be able to stomach the rates going up. >> i think you and i both agree with that. look congress is going to do what they do and the president is going to do what he does. they're going to kick this down the road as far as they can. recognize they have to have a framework of a deal before they leave for the holidays because wall street is getting jittery with this.

they want a resolution. i think both sides will come together and find an equitable way to increase revenue without killing the economy. that's my hope. >> jennifer: and so in all candor, as you assess the lay of the land and the republican party, there is, i'm sure you're seeing, a bit of the softening of the ground. there is a schism between those who understand what happened in the election and those who have -- are still clinging to the hope that they will be able to do this without raising the rates on the wealthiest. don't you think you're seeing a bit of a schism? >> i think you are. i think you heard it from john boehner the day after the election as saying, again the president won. elections have consequences and i think republicans in the house are recognizing that they're going to have to concede. the president is going to get more revenue but i will tell you this. i spent most on the day on capitol hill today. members are adamant they're not going to raise those two top rates, governor. that's where they're going to have to come together and say we need to be very specific about what revenue we're talking about. what loopholes you're looking to

close and the president is actually going to have to negotiate rather than dictate. that's where we are right now. >> jennifer: a quick question, ron. do you think that john boehner would be willing to bring something to the floor that doesn't have a majority of the majority? would he be willing to put together a deal that is with a larger number of democrats? >> i think john boehner for being the speaker of the house is also the head of the republicans in the house. i think he recognizes that if he can't find 218 votes, that's what you need to pass a bill in the house, it wouldn't be worth his time to bring something up to lose. ultimately, i do think you'll find a bill that will pass, that will have democratic support of raising revenue but no, i don't think he would bring a bill to the floor where he couldn't get a majority of the caucus to vote for it. >> jennifer: interesting. republican strategist, ron christie, thanks so much for coming inside "the war room." ron is the author of "blackwards." coming up, what's the real story with grover norquist? who is this slick-talking firebrand we see dazzling the

media with analysis like this? >> the president was committed -- elected on the basis he was not romney and romney was a poopy head. >> jennifer: oh, if it wasn't sheer force of personality, how did grover norquist accumulate so much power? plus, high cholesterol and low pay, america's fast food empires have built their fortunes on an unhealthy dose of each but it is the low pay that's got us worked up tonight. later, karl rove and dick morris get banned from fox news for getting it wrong! begging the obvious question... could a fox news ban of its entire network be far behind? you are in "the war room" on a wednesday. we're just getting started. stick around!

[ male announcer ] lifts to clear obstacles. ♪ ♪ lowers to cut drag. rises to every challenge. the class exclusive air suspension in the new 2013 ram 1500. and earth. guts. glory. ram.

>> jennifer: you're back inside "the war room." i'm jennifer granholm. so we spend a lot of time talking about grover norquist, president of the far right lobbying group americans for tax reform. norquist, as you know, adamantly opposes any tax increases and he threatens republicans who don't abide by his code, pledge. let's not mince words here. the guy has a stranglehold on the vast majority of the g.o.p. and he's able to keep them in his grips because of his big money backers. so who are his backers? it is a question that a lot of progressives including investigative reporter lee fong have be asking. lee is here with an answer. we hope, right?

so you know, welcome back into "the war room." glad to have you here. >> thank you. >> jennifer: grover norquist is a guy who was you know, laundering -- accused of laundering money for jack abramoff. how does this guy have so much power? >> you know, some folks have talked about how grover norquist has cast a spell over the republican party with his pledge. has them enraptured. he's also cast a spell over the washington press corps where everyone seems to have forgotten all of the sorted dealings and biographical notes that are important to convey to the public. >> jennifer: let's talk about that. let's talk about the specific sources of his power. who gives his organization money >> we reported last week that over 66% of norquist's budget -- 2/3 of his money -- in the nation correct, come from two billionaire-backed nonprofits. >> jennifer:66%.

>> steve schwartzman steve bechtel. these are guys worth billions that don't want to pay a penny more in taxes and they have the money to help retaliate against republicans who break the pledge. historically, they have funded primary challenges, ads to push the republicans to the far right on this issue. >> jennifer: okay so americans for tax reform has a pac and that's what they give to. those two billionaires. >> trade association technically but it operates as a pac because they buy ads and do a lot of the electioneering stuff that a pac would do. >> jennifer: while he's raising money from his allies, from these two donors and others, i'm sure. 66% tells you. he's also essentially lobbying for tax breaks for entities like general electric. >> that's right. you know, everyone talks about the first part of the norquist pledge, not to raise the tax rates but the second half of it is basically a promise not to cut tax credits which as you know, many of them amount to nothing more than corporate subsidies so g.e. pays norquist. he goes out to bat for their

subsidies. >> jennifer: are you telling me grover norquist is picking winners and losers in the tax code? >> he has priorities. they seem to adhere with some of his own donors. >> jennifer: i'm shocked. norquist doesn't have to reveal his donors. how did find out? >> a nonprofit doesn't have to disclose their grants in but they have to disclose their grants out. i kind of combed through the recently-released disclosure for 2011 and found some of the groups giving money to him. also some companies voluntarily disclose so that's been very helpful. >> jennifer: okay. let me switch topics. i want to show everybody a commercial that ran during the campaign. watch this. i thought we had it. anyway, it is a commercial that is an ad that was paid for by a group called 60 plus association which was financed, in part, by a saudi-led oil lobby group. i think we have it now.

let's try it one more time. >> 23 million are out of work. 46 million are on food stamps. we're $16 trillion in debt. >> it is really clear from what we've seen so far. >> you agree with barber. have president obama's policies helped you? let's really help the middle class. vote against barber and obama. >> jennifer: okay. so this was a campaign ad and the campaign ad was financed by this saudi-led oil lobby group. how can a saudi-led foreign entity fund a campaign commercial in america? >> well, the citizens united decision in 2010 opened significant loopholes for these tiepts of problems -- these types of problems. essentially, everyone talks about super pacs. most of them -- most super pacs are funded by individuals. but citizens united also enabled trade associations which historically have been fund and led by foreigners on to act as a

campaign committee. the only difference is that trade associations don't have to disclose during the election. so a lot of foreign -- >> jennifer: so it is even worse than what you would find from a corporation giving because a trade association not only can have foreign money but it doesn't have to disclose. >> foreign money and foreign leadership in the case of american petroleum institute where one of the board members is an actual registered lobbyist for the government. he's also an executive at the saudi state-run oil companies that helped fund the group. >> jennifer: okay. so is ammending -- is somehow going after undoing citizens united the only way of getting at this? >> i think long-term that's the only real solution to this problem. but short term, disclose. there are many common sense disclosure ideas on the table. voters, i think, have a right to know if their ads are being funded. >> jennifer: i think it is a huge loophole no one is talking about that you have exposed. it is a huge loophole.

thank you for coming inside "the war room." >> thank you governor. >> jennifer: where the campaign never ends. that's investigative reporter with the nation, lee fong. really appreciate it. coming up, republicans like to spin a yarn that big business is no fan of president obama though to swallow that, you would have to believe that they don't like money either because they're raking it in like never before. that story is next. one you'll only find inside "the war room." i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us.

[ boy 1 ] hey! that's the last crescent. oh, did you want it? yea we'll split it. [ female announcer ] made fresh, so light buttery and flakey. that's half that's not half! guys, i have more! thanks mom [ female announcer ] pillsbury crescents. let the making begin ♪ ♪ [ female announcer ] holiday cookies are a big job. everything has to be just right. perfection is in the details. ♪ ♪ get to holiday fun faster with pillsbury cookie dough. [ piano plays ] troy polamalu's going deeper. ♪ ♪ and so is head & shoulders deep clean.

[ male announcer ] with 7 benefits it goes deep to remove grease, gunk and flakes. deep. like me. [ male announcer ] head & shoulders deep clean for men. ♪ ♪ rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. gn to corporate executives today. those top leaders may be small in number but they're actually very extra large in influence

and during his address the president's address to the business roundtable which is a bunch of ceos of the biggest corporations president obama had this message for republicans who were plotting to gain leverage over the fiscal cliff discussions by folding the debt ceiling into fiscal cliff talks. take a listen. >> obama: congress, in any way suggests that they're going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation which by the way we have never done in our history until we did it last year, i will not play that game. >> jennifer: fortunately for us "newsweek" "daily beast" special correspondent michael tomasky is always up for playing political games himself. he's joining us from washington d.c. thanks for coming back inside "the war room." >> it is always my pleasure, governor. >> jennifer: always a pleasure to have you.

so let me talk about this debt ceiling issue. because really, as we look at it really, the only leverage that republicans have on the fiscal cliff talks they proceed to be with the debt limit right? so today the treasury department ups the ante by endorsing republican senator mitch mcconnell's summer 2011 provision which, you know, he suggested and it effectively lets the president raise the debt limit himself. only has congress intervene if they don't like it. mcconnell, of course is now against it. do you think something like that could pass? >> maybe. it is only -- it is only december 5th and you know, that leaves 26 days and a lot of times, these kind of negotiations change very wildly in the last few days so it's possible. the fact that mcconnell did propose this just last year, even though he's against it now the fact that he was thiebd last

year could build public pressure on him to get behind this again and it is kind of complicated and arcane. you summed it up very well. instead of the debt limit being something that congress has to actively raise, they could just passively -- it would be something they would have to disapprove. in essence. so it could happen that way. there are all kinds of wrinkles here that could be played out. i wouldn't slam the door shut on it but you know, it's -- not very encouraging right now. >> jennifer: well so there's a lot of these moving pieces obviously the debt limit is one of them. you, today wrote about another piece that could be an interesting piece of the puzzle which is you said that president obama ought to throw the republicans a bone -- a curveball by giving something to the corporate executives. you said he should propose lowering the corporate tax rate from 35% to 30%. what's your rationale behind

that? >> well i have rationales both substantive and political. substantive, i think it is the right thing to do. i've spoken to a lot of economists about this over the years. even many liberal economists would agree that the corporate tax rate of 35% in this country is too high. it is higher than in most other -- i think every other advanced country. now it has to be done, obviously, the lowering would have to be done with closing loot of the loopholes that corporations take advantage of. 26 major corporations last year paid no federal income tax at all. so that nonsense has to be done away with. but substantively, many economists think it is a good idea to lower the corporate tax rate. politically, i think it further hems the republicans in. i think it gives obama even higher political ground than he has now. he already has political high ground. he already has a strong position. he may not even have to do this

politically. but i think that this would send if he did it, it would send a signal to the corporate world that okay, this guy he's not -- he doesn't want to just raise everybody's taxes willy-nilly. he's talking sense to us. he's talking our language. maybe if he's going to give us a little, we could give him a little. he gets the corporate people on his side and they start pressuring the republicans even more. >> jennifer: i actually like this a lot. i mean -- i think the effective tax rate which is really the rate that everybody really pays when you include the loopholes is somewhere in the mid-20s right? mid 20%. i might go lower than you would go so then you have the corporate community on your side for both tax reform, corporate tax reform and you would have them hopefully lobbying congress on your behalf regarding the debt ceiling because they don't like that whole congress holding the country hostage over the debt ceiling either. i think it is a great idea. last week though, just on the political front the commerce department released a report

which showed corporate profits for the third quarter at $1.7 trillion, the highest in the record -- it is ridiculous how historically high they are. congress might go for it but politically how do you sell a drop in corporate taxes to the public? >> well, it might not be easiest, especially when corporations aren't hiring. what was outrageous in the last couple of years was that they were getting these record profits and they weren't really hiring. maybe now if they're hiring a little bit that helps. i think if you lower that corporate rate in exchange for getting the 39.6 rate on the higher end individual marginal rate, maybe that helps it go down a little bit more easily. so you know, and of course it has to be done, as i said earlier, in conjunction with closing a lot of these loopholes. i think if this looks fair to people i think the majority of american people would buy it. >> jennifer: i think they would, too. one other sort of little bit off

question. i want a yes or no. do you think that senator harry reid is going to get filibuster reform done? >> no. >> jennifer: oh! break my heart tomasky! come on. we were doing so well there for a minute. why wouldn't he? if it is a majority vote, why wouldn't he? >> you know, i'm not sure -- let me put it this way. that came out of my mouth somewhat as a surprise to me, actually. but that was my first -- that was my first instinct. i just think -- it's going to be hard to get 51 democrats, even though they're going to have 55, i know. i think is going to be tough to get 51 democrats to vote for that. governor, even if they do get it, i don't think this filibuster reform that they're getting is going to change very much. they're not necessarily hitting all of the choke points you might say.

>> jennifer: but it might be more transparent. i hope you write about it. all right. michael tomasky special correspondent with "newsweek" "daily beast." up next, fast food workers going on strike. what outrageous demands could they possibly want? how about a living wage? we'll talk to one of the strikers. that story is next only to be found in "the war room." i want our viewer to understand why things have happened. at the end of the show, you know what has happened, why its happened and more importantly, what's going to happen tomorrow.

so check out the web site. just google elizabeth warren. i think i want to write her a

check plyself. i would really love to see her join the ranks of the united states senate and get rid of scott brown. 1-866-55-press.

>> real people living real lives in new york city. >> we've been threatened with the cutting of hours. we've been threatened with losing our jobs. if i lose my job than to stay there and be belittled. >> jennifer: last week, hundreds of fast food workers took to the streets of new york to demand a living wage. workers from mcdonald's, burger king, wendy's, taco bell, other major fast food chains all walked out. and they called for the minimum wage to be raised to $15 an hour. for the right to unionize without interference. they would be a powerful force. fast food workers are the fourth largest occupation in the country! they earn on average about $18,000 a year. for full time. that's roughly the poverty level for a family of three.

at the same time, these big chains are reporting record profits. and the issue underscores a fundamental, moral question. will we build an economy that pays workers enough to support a family or will we use the government to subsidize people's wages through food stamps and other support. today, we're not doing either one. in michigan, i signed a bill to raise the minimum wage to $7.40 an hour. that was six years ago. it needs to be raised again. the federal minimum wage is lower than that. it is now just $7.25 an hour. try, just try imagine earning $7.25 an hour and paying a mortgage or rent try living on $7.25 an hour and buying food, much less acquiring transportation in some way. forget clothing. that's a total luxury. this is a moral issue.

but it is also an economic issue that's going to determine the vitality of our nation's recovery from recession. joining me now are two champions of the living wage fight. jonathan westin, director of fast food forward an organization that helped organize the strikes in new york. and linda archer is a current mcdonald's employee who's joined in the fight for better wages. they're joining us from new york. great to have you both inside "the war room" to share your story. really appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thanks for having us. >> jennifer: you bet. let me start with you, linda. you have worked for mcdonald's for almost three years. and you make $8 an hour. so why did you decide to strike now? >> i decided to strike because $8 an hour isn't enough in terms of my income. i have a student loan. i have bills to pay.

and i feel that i deserve a better -- a better wage and good benefits because i don't even have benefits. i couldn't even go shopping for the discounted day of the year which was black friday. i just didn't have it. >> jennifer: right. you're living in new york city for pete's sake or new york which is a hugely expensive place to live. you're 59 years old. you're living with i think your 80-year-old mother in one of the most expensive cities in the u.s. how do you make ends meet on your current salary? >> my current salary, i help out with whatever i can with my mom. she's retired under her social security and pension. it makes me feel real bad i can't do more so what will happen if she dies? where will i be? what would i do? >> jennifer: so the only way you're able to survive is by living with your mom at 59 years

old. >> yes. >> jennifer: jonathan, why has it been so hard to unionize fast food workers in the past? >> well, i think the idea that many people believed was that fast food workers were temporary workers, were teenagers working after school jobs when in fact, it is just not true, especially after the recession when so many people lost their full-time jobs. and had to rely on fast food work and other work. they have families to support. they have to put food on the table. they have to survive. and to be honest, people just can't make it and you know, i think it is at a tipping point where people in the industry just can't take it anymore. people like linda. >> jennifer: right. so what would it take to double the minimum wage? you've got federal law and state laws. you would have to either go state by state or get an increase on the federal level is that what you're shooting

for? the federal? >> what we're shooting for is to have the fast food industry come to the table. this is an industry, like you said, makes billions of dollars in profits and has made billions. record profits after the recession. they're recovering. the workers are not. they can afford to pay workers $15 an hour. the question is will they do it? >> jennifer: so have they come to the table? have you been able to have a conversation with them? >> i haven't heard from mcdonald's. i haven't heard from burger king or yum! brands. i don't think linda has either. so no. >> jennifer: linda, what was the mood on the picket line? how did customers respond when they saw the signs? >> they were pretty happy. they were for us. they told us keep fighting. >> jennifer: and so do you think, jonathan, will you take this from new york to other cities? >> i think the idea that you know 200 workers walked out on

strike faced their bosses. faced management. faced the multibillion dollar corporations and showed they could do it. they could express their rights in face of management and hopefully it inspires a movement of workers throughout the city and also around the country. tomorrow in times square, we're going to be meeting up not with just fast food workers but carwash workers and supermarket workers to continue this movement. i think there will be more of this into the future and hopefully it spreads across the country. >> jennifer: so is the umbrella union that's partnering with you the seiu, the service employees international union? >> there is a coalition of community organizations clergy, elected officials labor unions, they're all working together to make sure fast food workers get a living wage and the right to form a union. >> jennifer: all right. linda, when you were striking, did you fear -- were you afraid

you would lose your job? what were the discussions among your coworkers? >> no. i wasn't afraid at all. because right now presently i'm on $8 an hour. that's more than what some of the other workers are making and i just didn't feel like i had nothing to lose. i just want a better life. >> jennifer: you are making $8 an hour and you felt like -- >> yeah but it took me two and a half years just to get an 80 cent raise to get to $8 an hour. >> jennifer: i hope they're listening to you. i hope you're listening! so important. thank you very much, jonathan westin and linda archer, for coming inside "the war room" and telling your story. sharing with us tonight. up next, republicans have not accepted the results of the 2012 election as of yet. that doesn't mean that they're not already planning for 2016. we're going to go inside phase

three of their ingenious 12-year plan to take back the white house right after this.

>> jennifer: further evidence the election campaign never really ends with just 1,434 days until the 2016 presidential election. a few of the republican stars are already dipping their toes into the cool waters of the campaign. last night congressman paul ryan senator marco rubio attended a dinner honoring the late anti-tax supply sider jack kemp. ryan distanced himself at that dinner from mitt romney's now notorious 47% remarks. >> both parties tend to divide americans into our voters and their voters. let's be really clear. republicans must steer far clear

of that trap. we need need to speak to the aspirations -- [ applause ] we must speak to the aspirations and the anxieties of every american. >> jennifer: wonder why he wasn't telling romney that on the campaign. anyway romney and rubio then were up there joking that they're going to be seeing a lot of each other on the 2016 iowa, new hampshire, south carolina dinner circuit. so, of course, for the latest on the republicans quixotic branding campaign, we're going to turn to christine pelosi, chair of the women's caucus in her fabulous pink blazer. her political analysis can be found on politico's arena section. what do you think? do you think democrats would like a shot at running against ryan again or is rubio preferrable or is there another character out there you think would be a good opponent for

2016? >> well first of all the republican party needs to evolve and to evolve, they need to believe in evolution. the first thing rubio needs to do -- is go back to school. >> jennifer: he says he knows though how old the earth is having been caught on that earlier this week. >> okay, well that's great because when he was denying -- it was ridiculous. also paul ryan hasn't evolved either. his ryan plan which we called a road map to ruin the first time and the second time and the third time we took a look at it divides america in terms of makers and takers. it still divides this country. that's what john boehner is putting up as counterproposal to president obama. they need evolution on the scientific front and economic front if they're going to succeed. >> jennifer: and on the inclusivity front. even george w. bush had a speech yesterday where he was talking about the importance of immigration and you know, obviously rubio has been saying that but if they continue down this path they've been on, it is

over for them. 2016, we have a new poll for hillary clinton or at least testing the waters as "the washington post," abc news poll, not her testing the waters but them. a poll showing 57% of americans support a presidential run by clinton. 37% oppose it. how much time off do we give her after she steps down from being secretary of state before we start to read the tea leaves? >> we're reading them now. >> jennifer: i totally agree with you. >> i'm a secret delegate for the 2016 democratic national convention. my first choice is hillary clinton. i think she's the front-runner amongst the colleagues i've talked to. dozens of my colleagues since the election. she's a front-runner. i think you give her about six months. >> jennifer: that's exactly what i said today. six months. then we start -- although yesterday when she was writing the note to the losers in new york, i was saying that, to me, is a great sign she is, in fact, on the path to running. >> well, bill clinton was the most valuable player out there. >> jennifer: absolutely. >> for the obama/biden campaign

other than the two principles on the ticket. of course, every governor, every senator, every member of congress who was elected is also a super delegate who will choose the next president. >> jennifer: i don't see how the force -- the force the inexorable pull of this from those who support her and those who love her is just going to be too great. she needs to go to a spa. she needs to take a relaxing -- take a break. do the exercises. what she wants to do. but six months then we're back at it. all right. so you know, republicans have had some challenges appointing women. obviously we've all been talking about the number of women that were not appointed in the house republican caucus other than the one, candace miller. but the sunlight foundation, we were assuming it was because of sexism. the sunlight foundation has another theory which is that they were not appointed because they aren't as influential from a money perspective because all of the large leadership pacs on the republican side are associated with men. do you think we should have

assumed this is all about money? >> i think it is both. if you look at the gingrich congress, when they came in, they kicked out marge roque ma, a moderate from new jersey, had a chance to get a gavel. they denied her that. when you look at what they did bringing in richard from california called an enemy of the earth he took over on somebody's slot on the interior committee because he was able to raise a lot of money. boehner is doing a similar thing here. here's the thing. the republicans have a choice. they have term limits for their committee chairs. they could have extended the term of illiana, a latina from florida. they did not. the one person who got an extension, paul ryan. so i wonder if illiana had to go why does paul get to stay? could be the money. could be the gender. could be the race. should have been both of them or neither of them. >> jennifer: it is a good lesson -- of course, you and i are big encouragers of women to run for office. that money component of running

campaigns is not going away. women have to be unafraid of being able to ask for contributions knowing that it's not about them but about the cause that they wish to pursue. >> that's right. the latest polling that we've seen from the foundation says that all candidates have to be likable and qualified. if you're a woman, you get into a double jeopardy bind. if you're not seen as being likable, you're automatically seen as not being qualified. we elect the irascible men but not the irascible women. you can't make a case to run for office. you have to make a cause to run for office if you're a woman. >> >> jennifer: christine pelosi knows what she's talking about. up next, karl rove and dick morris have upset their corporate masters at fox news. and their sentence, a fate worse than death! oops, i actually read that wrong. they actually just can't go on tv for awhile. we'll tell you about that after the break.

>> jennifer: apparently there's someone that karl rove can't outfox. and it is roger ailes who is his boss at fox news channel. according to a report in "new york" magazine, ails is having all of his shows ask for permission before using karl rove and dick morris as political guests. apparently roger ailes was not happy with the baseless cheerleading and second guessing that karl rove and dick morris were doing and a fox spokeswoman told "new york" magazine that the rule is in effect because the election is over. it is nice to see someone on the right recognize the election is over. maybe they should tell the house republicans, too. so, it is not very often we see the house of representatives united but today they actually came very close. texas republican louie gohmert was the only member of the house to vote against a law stripping